Tell Me :
Talk
24FPS, in three posts you wrap the topic up. Great insight and musicality into the matter. I see how Charlie could call on DJ's name.He has this romantic notion of all things 'Jazz'; which IMO is often misguided. To me a big reason I love Charlie and his playing is because he has always been in his own world; above or beside it all. Letting him make that call could have proved a stroke of genius, or could have misfired.
Look, it made no sense at all to have DJ become the Stones bass player. Keith had an instinctive feel for assembling great, beautiful bands. I am way past the notion of Keith running anything in the Stones, but this is one time he should have insisted. He would have brought someone from with his solo career camp, and it would have been good for the Stones. Probably another headache for Jagger, but good for the band.
Wooble and rubber... Yes.. Captures it.. Makes me think to that smiley
Bill wrote he learnt bass with the idea to make some money in ballrooms.. Ronnie Lane, Joey Spampinato.. Some common roots with Bill...
[www.youtube.com]
No, YOU don't have to write an essay, I do. But I'll keep it simple. Bill, Hampton, Black Limousine. Cheers, mate.
Interesting theory. So you're saying Darryl chooses to play meandering, emotionless bass that doesn't drive the music or contribute to its artistic presentation? Okay.
It's all relative. In their own way, they've still played very well since Bill left and D. Jones does a reliable job. But as mentioned by several, that "classic Stones sound" is a thing of the past. That pulsing tight but loose swing and roll. Bill and Stu were a huge part of that. Now they sound more "professional" but I liked them better raw.
"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."
Some people say Ron Wood is horrible, others think he's a genius. In the end it's a matter of taste, or even nostalgia.
Below the first 45 seconds you hear Charlie Watts talking about Bill and Darryl:
Charlie on Bill/Darryl
Charlie didn't get Bill's playing until he had to go over parts with Darryl and suddenly Charlie understood how clever Bill was. I just don't think Charlie really gets rock music. My dad was a jazz drummer and he never did. Their ears are clouded, like mine are for most rap. It all sounds the same, not hip hop, but rap. I don't think Ronnie is a genius, like Mick Taylor was at his peak, or Brian all around, but he's quite good and there simply wouldn't be a modern day Stones without him. He was great on Blue & Lonesome. I think Charlie and Bill were just two work mates who got on well. Bill was the one who came from 50s rock and roll. He could make his electric guitar play like a 50s standup. Charlie was in his own world, following Keith. All that Charlie understood about Bill is, 'That the whole damn bottom of the band fell out when he would stop playing'.
I can never get over what strange good fortune gave us the Rolling Stones. How bizarre is it that drummer for the "World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" doesn't even like rock and roll?
It is relative, and I recognize Darryl's talent for sure, but I prefer Bill's style. More technical often doesn't mean more musical.....and as someone said, Bill is part of the Stones DNA. It was some hella quirk
of fate these guys lined up.
I never understood that musical theory about "Charlie following Keith timing-wise". Anyway, one might question the different opinion about Bill"s playing between Keith and Charlie i.e. Bill's replacement, and how it affected the atmosphere in the band.
Keith on Bill, he gets a bit emotional:
Keith on Bill
Or.......I feel sorry for the ears of some people around here can't discern the beauty of some players. Those who can hear the beauty, hear also when it isn't, and it ruins most everything for them. Not everything. But it is hard turning off that part of my mind when I listen to the Post-Wyman Stones. It used to be 4 interesting, contributing musicians, plus the singer. Now it's only 3.
There's a question mark at the end of that sentence, so I'll read that as a question.
Answer: Yes they did! And how!!
I've seen them on stage grooving along together in the most impressive way, and also in a studio playing a (sort of) private show for families... and that was beyond astonishing.
Rhythm Kings and swing go together like Rolling Stones and total greatness!
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad?
Your thoughts!
Your thoughts! Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: March 9, 2018 15:06
Quote
24FPS
I was pissed when Bill left. Then I heard Voodoo Lounge and thought they'd be okay because Darryl basically sounded like Bill on songs like Love Is Strong and You Got Me Rocking. Then something happened, stubbornness, laziness, was told not to by 'the boys', who knows. Darryl's playing rapidly deteriorated within the group and never picked back up again. I think Bill's playing suffered a little bit in the late 60s, but he came roaring back, getting better and better, and was a main part of their sound from Miss You through Harlem Shuffle. I can listen to Start Me Up and analyze all the different little things Bill did to push the song forward. I cannot think of one Darryl Jones cut on a Stones song where I hear anything above what a run of the mill bass player would add. And, on stage, Darryl almost stubbornly won't put those little classic bass notes where they belong on songs. I ask, seriously, any of those who claim to prefer Darryl, what exactly it is about his playing they prefer.
Bill is different in that he's in the DNA of the group. His contribution to the chemistry is inescapable. They all grew up together as musicians. Brian was the most advanced when they first formed, but the others caught up and eventually passed Brian as he lost interest, laziness, drug addled, whatever. I used to watch my Four Flicks and The Biggest Bang DVD sets regularly. Then they started releasing vintage product with Bill playing on basically the same songs, and I haven't watched 4Flicks and Bigger B DVDs since. They are a fully functioning, fully contributing band with Bill. He was their anchor. Darryl by comparison is just kind of off to the side going through the motions. Yeah, Keith smiles at him a lot as if something is happening, but that's because Bill was an equal and didn't have to smile at any of them.
Look, Bill didn't want to stay. He looks kind of disengaged on the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle tours, but he could still be brilliant at times, like Harlem Shuffle on the Tokyo DVD. Yes, the Stones were a lesser group after his departure. Yes, they had continued success, especially as a live act, but that's more to do with no competition. I guess the most noticeable difference is that without Bill the Stones don't hit you in the gut anymore. Bill is a rocker, Darryl is a jazzer. Keith understands, and said so, basically calling Bill THE Stones bass player.
24FPS, in three posts you wrap the topic up. Great insight and musicality into the matter. I see how Charlie could call on DJ's name.He has this romantic notion of all things 'Jazz'; which IMO is often misguided. To me a big reason I love Charlie and his playing is because he has always been in his own world; above or beside it all. Letting him make that call could have proved a stroke of genius, or could have misfired.
Look, it made no sense at all to have DJ become the Stones bass player. Keith had an instinctive feel for assembling great, beautiful bands. I am way past the notion of Keith running anything in the Stones, but this is one time he should have insisted. He would have brought someone from with his solo career camp, and it would have been good for the Stones. Probably another headache for Jagger, but good for the band.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
doitywoik
()
Date: March 9, 2018 16:53
The way I remember, it was Charlie who made the decision for Darryl - at least that's how it was publicized. They auditioned a number of candidates and in the end it was down to Charlie to pick one, and Charlie went for Darryl because Darryl had been in Miles Davis's band in the latter half of the 1980s.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 9, 2018 19:34
I dont understand. How is it possible to be a fan and not hear how important Bill was? Every single show or song with him on bass is great no matter what. Start me up, Route 66, any live song 1962-1990, Hot Stuff, Miss You etc. Must be the most underrated guy in rock. He saved many of their live shows when the band wasnt all that great. When they were at their peak, he more or less drives or co drives the band with Keith and Charlie + Jagger and Taylor. Seriously - put on boot from..well anytime, any concert with Bill as a member. Lets say 1981 and one from 1975 and one from 1972 and 1973 each. And just listen to that wobbly, thumping engine that is the deep, soulful, earthy, black (yes), ancient sounding heartbeat of a caveman that is the Stones. He was the deep lines grooved in their young faces.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
obonpaxis
()
Date: March 9, 2018 21:18
It's weird watching early footage of the band, with Bill frequently smiling, singing backup, and dare I say - animated.
To me, his playing was a bit more adventurous during the Jones years. Eventually he stopped asserting himself - for a variety of reasons - and his influence on the band's sound diminished.
Then you've got Keith, Mick T, and Wood all obviously contributing their share of bass guitar parts in the studio, sometimes bringing a more foundational "riffy" approach to songs than Wyman usually did (think of Keith on Live With Me, Taylor on Fingerprint File, or Wood on Emotional Rescue). Wyman's playing always seemed more rubbery and free-form to me - in a good way - like a pure rhythm-and-blues BASSIST - as opposed to a guitarist moonlighting on bass.
He definitely caught some kind of second wind from '78 on - especially on stage. Maybe it was because the tempos picked back up and there was more room to showcase his strengths. His "wobble" always stood out more on faster numbers with minimal chord changes.
Bill's playing wasn't flashy, but it remains inimitable. Darryl is technically better, but the Stones haven't sounded Stonesy on stage since 8/25/90.
To me, his playing was a bit more adventurous during the Jones years. Eventually he stopped asserting himself - for a variety of reasons - and his influence on the band's sound diminished.
Then you've got Keith, Mick T, and Wood all obviously contributing their share of bass guitar parts in the studio, sometimes bringing a more foundational "riffy" approach to songs than Wyman usually did (think of Keith on Live With Me, Taylor on Fingerprint File, or Wood on Emotional Rescue). Wyman's playing always seemed more rubbery and free-form to me - in a good way - like a pure rhythm-and-blues BASSIST - as opposed to a guitarist moonlighting on bass.
He definitely caught some kind of second wind from '78 on - especially on stage. Maybe it was because the tempos picked back up and there was more room to showcase his strengths. His "wobble" always stood out more on faster numbers with minimal chord changes.
Bill's playing wasn't flashy, but it remains inimitable. Darryl is technically better, but the Stones haven't sounded Stonesy on stage since 8/25/90.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
anakin91
()
Date: March 9, 2018 21:33
This question has obvious answer for me: of course it is bad. I am not sure about live acts but without Wyman, Stones have not recorded any single album which is at least as good as any with Wyman in the band. So the answer is very, very simple 
It is a huge loss. The last RS album which I can call "great" was Steel Wheels.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-09 21:36 by anakin91.
It is a huge loss. The last RS album which I can call "great" was Steel Wheels.Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-09 21:36 by anakin91.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 9, 2018 21:45
One doesn't have to write an essay about this. It's really simple. Bill is a born and bred rock and roll basist. You even hear it on the name rock-a-billy. That is his roots.
He may be a luddite hack, capable of nothing, but he is a rock and roll bassist. Primitive as that obviously is. Darryl is not.
He may be a luddite hack, capable of nothing, but he is a rock and roll bassist. Primitive as that obviously is. Darryl is not.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: March 9, 2018 22:23
Quote
Stoneage
One doesn't have to write an essay about this. It's really simple. Bill is a born and bred rock and roll basist. You even hear it on the name rock-a-billy. That is his roots.
He may be a luddite hack, capable of nothing, but he is a rock and roll bassist. Primitive as that obviously is. Darryl is not.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: March 9, 2018 23:00
Quote
obonpaxis
It's weird watching early footage of the band, with Bill frequently smiling, singing backup, and dare I say - animated.
To me, his playing was a bit more adventurous during the Jones years. Eventually he stopped asserting himself - for a variety of reasons - and his influence on the band's sound diminished.
Then you've got Keith, Mick T, and Wood all obviously contributing their share of bass guitar parts in the studio, sometimes bringing a more foundational "riffy" approach to songs than Wyman usually did (think of Keith on Live With Me, Taylor on Fingerprint File, or Wood on Emotional Rescue). Wyman's playing always seemed more rubbery and free-form to me - in a good way - like a pure rhythm-and-blues BASSIST - as opposed to a guitarist moonlighting on bass.
He definitely caught some kind of second wind from '78 on - especially on stage. Maybe it was because the tempos picked back up and there was more room to showcase his strengths. His "wobble" always stood out more on faster numbers with minimal chord changes.
Bill's playing wasn't flashy, but it remains inimitable. Darryl is technically better, but the Stones haven't sounded Stonesy on stage since 8/25/90.
Wooble and rubber... Yes.. Captures it.. Makes me think to that smiley
Bill wrote he learnt bass with the idea to make some money in ballrooms.. Ronnie Lane, Joey Spampinato.. Some common roots with Bill...[www.youtube.com]
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 10, 2018 00:02
Quote
Stoneage
One doesn't have to write an essay about this. It's really simple. Bill is a born and bred rock and roll basist. You even hear it on the name rock-a-billy. That is his roots.
He may be a luddite hack, capable of nothing, but he is a rock and roll bassist. Primitive as that obviously is. Darryl is not.
No, YOU don't have to write an essay, I do. But I'll keep it simple. Bill, Hampton, Black Limousine. Cheers, mate.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: March 10, 2018 00:27
Darryl's equalizer settings and timing might be a bit different, but he has the essential skills, just like Bill: backing it up, and don't walk in the way. If they asked Darryl to sound like Bill, he could do it with one finger in his nose. Dandelion Powderman's post of "Live with Me" (the LiB sound in this thread) is a perfect example. Having said that, I like most of Bill's playing with the Stones.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 10, 2018 00:40
Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Darryl's equalizer settings and timing might be a bit different, but he has the essential skills, just like Bill: backing it up, and don't walk in the way. If they asked Darryl to sound like Bill, he could do it with one finger in his nose. Dandelion Powderman's post of "Live with Me" (the LiB sound in this thread) is a perfect example. Having said that, I like most of Bill's playing with the Stones.
Interesting theory. So you're saying Darryl chooses to play meandering, emotionless bass that doesn't drive the music or contribute to its artistic presentation? Okay.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 10, 2018 01:06
Bill was often tragically over-looked and disrepected by some his fellows.
I haven't even read his books but want to; that is just my impression
as a fan, watching and listening thru the years.
That interview w K sort of haunts me. I've posted it before...
he's being asked about Bill shortly before the first project without
Wyman was going on the road....and K wanted to 'kill' him...
you could see the hurt...they had mis-used that relationship
and underestimated him; Jagger was kind of cruel about it more
than once, but I forgive ole Mick; he was just blustering through it
for the sake of continuity with the organization and everything...
but that foto-shopping thing was embarrassing...and etc....
I think Bill had plenty of precison and chops; and not just feel.
All that precious best hottest most wonderful rock and roll music in the world;
Sure there are exceptions, but almost without fail, everytime anybody
in the world is grooving to most any Rolling Stones song, it's Bill Wyman.
It just isn't anybody else.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-11 14:37 by hopkins.
I haven't even read his books but want to; that is just my impression
as a fan, watching and listening thru the years.
That interview w K sort of haunts me. I've posted it before...
he's being asked about Bill shortly before the first project without
Wyman was going on the road....and K wanted to 'kill' him...
you could see the hurt...they had mis-used that relationship
and underestimated him; Jagger was kind of cruel about it more
than once, but I forgive ole Mick; he was just blustering through it
for the sake of continuity with the organization and everything...
but that foto-shopping thing was embarrassing...and etc....
I think Bill had plenty of precison and chops; and not just feel.
All that precious best hottest most wonderful rock and roll music in the world;
Sure there are exceptions, but almost without fail, everytime anybody
in the world is grooving to most any Rolling Stones song, it's Bill Wyman.
It just isn't anybody else.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-11 14:37 by hopkins.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 10, 2018 01:29
"I tried to find my section and my aisle. It was dark and light and blaring. The usher screamed something about where my seat was but I couldn't hear and waved him off. I sat down on the steps and lit a cigarette. Mick was down there in some kind of pajamas with little strings tied around his ankles. Ron Wood was the rhythm guitarist replacing Mick Taylor; Billy Preston was really shooting-off at the keyboard; Keith Richards was on lead guitar and he and Ron were doing some sub-glancing lilting highs against each other's edges but Keith held a firmer more natural ground, albeit an easy one which allowed Ron to come in and play back against shots and lobs at his will. Charlie Watts on tempo seemed to have joy but his center was off to the left and falling down. Bill Wyman on bass was the total professional holding it all together over the bloody Thames-Forum."
Charles Bukowski - 1975
Charles Bukowski - 1975
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 10, 2018 02:10
Quote
24FPSQuote
Stoneage
One doesn't have to write an essay about this. It's really simple. Bill is a born and bred rock and roll basist. You even hear it on the name rock-a-billy. That is his roots.
He may be a luddite hack, capable of nothing, but he is a rock and roll bassist. Primitive as that obviously is. Darryl is not.
No, YOU don't have to write an essay, I do. But I'll keep it simple. Bill, Hampton, Black Limousine. Cheers, mate.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: March 10, 2018 03:02
Bad without Bill. Wish he never left.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
HonkeyTonkFlash
()
Date: March 10, 2018 17:01
Quote
MKjan
Bad without Bill. Wish he never left.
It's all relative. In their own way, they've still played very well since Bill left and D. Jones does a reliable job. But as mentioned by several, that "classic Stones sound" is a thing of the past. That pulsing tight but loose swing and roll. Bill and Stu were a huge part of that. Now they sound more "professional" but I liked them better raw.
"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: March 10, 2018 19:17
Quote
24FPSQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Darryl's equalizer settings and timing might be a bit different, but he has the essential skills, just like Bill: backing it up, and don't walk in the way. If they asked Darryl to sound like Bill, he could do it with one finger in his nose. Dandelion Powderman's post of "Live with Me" (the LiB sound in this thread) is a perfect example. Having said that, I like most of Bill's playing with the Stones.
Interesting theory. So you're saying Darryl chooses to play meandering, emotionless bass that doesn't drive the music or contribute to its artistic presentation? Okay.
Some people say Ron Wood is horrible, others think he's a genius. In the end it's a matter of taste, or even nostalgia.
Below the first 45 seconds you hear Charlie Watts talking about Bill and Darryl:
Charlie on Bill/Darryl
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
runrudolph
()
Date: March 10, 2018 21:42
Yeah, things changed when Bill left. i like darryll's playing, but with Bill the sound was much better.
More loose, more roll.
But hey, what can you do, except to enjoy the Stones sound now a days.
Enjoy
Jeroen
More loose, more roll.
But hey, what can you do, except to enjoy the Stones sound now a days.
Enjoy
Jeroen
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
redkev
()
Date: March 10, 2018 22:02
As others have said Darryl is more technical but I think Bill suited the Stones better. His playing was looser and seemed to gel better with the others. There are a few clips on youtube which are supposedly his original bass parts. They are amazing to listen to - not in terms of technical excellence (the timing is not great in parts) but the way in which he varies note length and up/down strokes with the plectrum. Its very unique, with so many little variations from verse to verse.
I would love to see him onstage at the London Stadium for a couple of tracks. I was lucky enough to be at his last ever gig with the Stones in 1990. Despite the fact that it would have been a little sad I think everyone there would have loved to have actually known it was his last gig at the time so he could have been given a proper send-off.
No offence to Darryl, who I think is great, but for me Bill will always be the Stones bass player.
I would love to see him onstage at the London Stadium for a couple of tracks. I was lucky enough to be at his last ever gig with the Stones in 1990. Despite the fact that it would have been a little sad I think everyone there would have loved to have actually known it was his last gig at the time so he could have been given a proper send-off.
No offence to Darryl, who I think is great, but for me Bill will always be the Stones bass player.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 10, 2018 22:11
Quote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
24FPSQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Darryl's equalizer settings and timing might be a bit different, but he has the essential skills, just like Bill: backing it up, and don't walk in the way. If they asked Darryl to sound like Bill, he could do it with one finger in his nose. Dandelion Powderman's post of "Live with Me" (the LiB sound in this thread) is a perfect example. Having said that, I like most of Bill's playing with the Stones.
Interesting theory. So you're saying Darryl chooses to play meandering, emotionless bass that doesn't drive the music or contribute to its artistic presentation? Okay.
Some people say Ron Wood is horrible, others think he's a genius. In the end it's a matter of taste, or even nostalgia.
Below the first 45 seconds you hear Charlie Watts talking about Bill and Darryl:
Charlie on Bill/Darryl
Charlie didn't get Bill's playing until he had to go over parts with Darryl and suddenly Charlie understood how clever Bill was. I just don't think Charlie really gets rock music. My dad was a jazz drummer and he never did. Their ears are clouded, like mine are for most rap. It all sounds the same, not hip hop, but rap. I don't think Ronnie is a genius, like Mick Taylor was at his peak, or Brian all around, but he's quite good and there simply wouldn't be a modern day Stones without him. He was great on Blue & Lonesome. I think Charlie and Bill were just two work mates who got on well. Bill was the one who came from 50s rock and roll. He could make his electric guitar play like a 50s standup. Charlie was in his own world, following Keith. All that Charlie understood about Bill is, 'That the whole damn bottom of the band fell out when he would stop playing'.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
blivet
()
Date: March 10, 2018 22:18
Quote
24FPS
I just don't think Charlie really gets rock music.
I can never get over what strange good fortune gave us the Rolling Stones. How bizarre is it that drummer for the "World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" doesn't even like rock and roll?
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 10, 2018 22:29
Posted by: redkev ()
Date: March 10, 2018 12:02
As others have said Darryl is more technical but I think Bill suited the Stones better. His playing was looser and seemed to gel better with the others. There are a few clips on youtube which are supposedly his original bass parts. They are amazing to listen to - not in terms of technical excellence (the timing is not great in parts) but the way in which he varies note length and up/down strokes with the plectrum. Its very unique, with so many little variations from verse to verse.
I would love to see him onstage at the London Stadium for a couple of tracks. I was lucky enough to be at his last ever gig with the Stones in 1990. Despite the fact that it would have been a little sad I think everyone there would have loved to have actually known it was his last gig at the time so he could have been given a proper send-off.
No offence to Darryl, who I think is great, but for me Bill will always be the Stones bass player.
________________________
Appreciate that post. On occasion I've also listened to some isolated track-vids on him, and you described it well for me.
It's "perfect," imo, cause it's reactive and very involved with the passion of the others and the intesnity of the songs as living, breathing things in performance.
And I do believe he got even better, relatively, (cause I think he was great from the start), into the early 80's and all thru them till retirement.
...seemed like it was an encyclopedia information between Bill & Charlie w the slightest glance, or knowing look at each other.
whoa all business and also the Holy Grail of the rock and roll period.
And the occasional smirks or eye-rolls were well worth the price of admission right there.
Bill could play it straight. And also, imo, I'd go all the way and
suggest Bill was as much the 'virtuoso' as Darryl as well.
Some of his playing is absolutely furious; and precise and lighting quick-snappy...it's never poppy or shallow;
unless he wants to 'pop' a string for technique.
....not taking anything away from Darryl, who is so likeable and I like
his stage presence....but to tag Darryl with all this virtuosity, respectfully
and deserved; I won't argue that....but Bill could, and did, pull off all
kinds of stuff on the Hot Fly Fast Blistering songs....
hahhaa the others from the start were starting trouble with those
comments about taking him into the band cause he was the only
one w a good amp;....hawww; if that's true, it's even more perfect,
and there IS a God.
....i think Bukowski had an interesting point from his frame of reference, re:
Bill being the 'professional' holding it all down and together, at that time and period in '75 at The Forum.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-11 14:42 by hopkins.
Date: March 10, 2018 12:02
As others have said Darryl is more technical but I think Bill suited the Stones better. His playing was looser and seemed to gel better with the others. There are a few clips on youtube which are supposedly his original bass parts. They are amazing to listen to - not in terms of technical excellence (the timing is not great in parts) but the way in which he varies note length and up/down strokes with the plectrum. Its very unique, with so many little variations from verse to verse.
I would love to see him onstage at the London Stadium for a couple of tracks. I was lucky enough to be at his last ever gig with the Stones in 1990. Despite the fact that it would have been a little sad I think everyone there would have loved to have actually known it was his last gig at the time so he could have been given a proper send-off.
No offence to Darryl, who I think is great, but for me Bill will always be the Stones bass player.
________________________
Appreciate that post. On occasion I've also listened to some isolated track-vids on him, and you described it well for me.
It's "perfect," imo, cause it's reactive and very involved with the passion of the others and the intesnity of the songs as living, breathing things in performance.
And I do believe he got even better, relatively, (cause I think he was great from the start), into the early 80's and all thru them till retirement.
...seemed like it was an encyclopedia information between Bill & Charlie w the slightest glance, or knowing look at each other.
whoa all business and also the Holy Grail of the rock and roll period.
And the occasional smirks or eye-rolls were well worth the price of admission right there.
Bill could play it straight. And also, imo, I'd go all the way and
suggest Bill was as much the 'virtuoso' as Darryl as well.
Some of his playing is absolutely furious; and precise and lighting quick-snappy...it's never poppy or shallow;
unless he wants to 'pop' a string for technique.
....not taking anything away from Darryl, who is so likeable and I like
his stage presence....but to tag Darryl with all this virtuosity, respectfully
and deserved; I won't argue that....but Bill could, and did, pull off all
kinds of stuff on the Hot Fly Fast Blistering songs....
hahhaa the others from the start were starting trouble with those
comments about taking him into the band cause he was the only
one w a good amp;....hawww; if that's true, it's even more perfect,
and there IS a God.
....i think Bukowski had an interesting point from his frame of reference, re:
Bill being the 'professional' holding it all down and together, at that time and period in '75 at The Forum.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-11 14:42 by hopkins.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
MKjan
()
Date: March 10, 2018 22:41
Quote
HonkeyTonkFlashQuote
MKjan
Bad without Bill. Wish he never left.
It's all relative. In their own way, they've still played very well since Bill left and D. Jones does a reliable job. But as mentioned by several, that "classic Stones sound" is a thing of the past. That pulsing tight but loose swing and roll. Bill and Stu were a huge part of that. Now they sound more "professional" but I liked them better raw.
It is relative, and I recognize Darryl's talent for sure, but I prefer Bill's style. More technical often doesn't mean more musical.....and as someone said, Bill is part of the Stones DNA. It was some hella quirk
of fate these guys lined up.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
HouseBoyKnows
()
Date: March 10, 2018 22:45
Agree with a lot that's been said here. I don't miss Bill anymore now. Daryl is OK and Bill's time has passed. But I do miss the band when Bill was in it.
Occasionally a casual fan will make a comment to me about Bill being boring or uninteresting. I usually counter it by making them listen to Whip or Imagination from Hampton '81 (I still like to brag I was there). That was primo Bill and a perfect band sound IMHO.
HBK
Occasionally a casual fan will make a comment to me about Bill being boring or uninteresting. I usually counter it by making them listen to Whip or Imagination from Hampton '81 (I still like to brag I was there). That was primo Bill and a perfect band sound IMHO.
HBK
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 10, 2018 22:53
I'm not a statistics guy but I'd guess that waay over 90%
of anybody in history, going forward or backward,
who have ever heard,
or does ever hear
The Rolling Stones;
will be hearing Bill Wyman.
That might be a conservatie estimate.
of anybody in history, going forward or backward,
who have ever heard,
or does ever hear
The Rolling Stones;
will be hearing Bill Wyman.
That might be a conservatie estimate.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
TheflyingDutchman
()
Date: March 10, 2018 23:22
Quote
24FPSQuote
TheflyingDutchmanQuote
24FPSQuote
TheflyingDutchman
Darryl's equalizer settings and timing might be a bit different, but he has the essential skills, just like Bill: backing it up, and don't walk in the way. If they asked Darryl to sound like Bill, he could do it with one finger in his nose. Dandelion Powderman's post of "Live with Me" (the LiB sound in this thread) is a perfect example. Having said that, I like most of Bill's playing with the Stones.
Interesting theory. So you're saying Darryl chooses to play meandering, emotionless bass that doesn't drive the music or contribute to its artistic presentation? Okay.
Some people say Ron Wood is horrible, others think he's a genius. In the end it's a matter of taste, or even nostalgia.
Below the first 45 seconds you hear Charlie Watts talking about Bill and Darryl:
Charlie on Bill/Darryl
Charlie didn't get Bill's playing until he had to go over parts with Darryl and suddenly Charlie understood how clever Bill was. I just don't think Charlie really gets rock music. My dad was a jazz drummer and he never did. Their ears are clouded, like mine are for most rap. It all sounds the same, not hip hop, but rap. I don't think Ronnie is a genius, like Mick Taylor was at his peak, or Brian all around, but he's quite good and there simply wouldn't be a modern day Stones without him. He was great on Blue & Lonesome. I think Charlie and Bill were just two work mates who got on well. Bill was the one who came from 50s rock and roll. He could make his electric guitar play like a 50s standup. Charlie was in his own world, following Keith. All that Charlie understood about Bill is, 'That the whole damn bottom of the band fell out when he would stop playing'.
I never understood that musical theory about "Charlie following Keith timing-wise". Anyway, one might question the different opinion about Bill"s playing between Keith and Charlie i.e. Bill's replacement, and how it affected the atmosphere in the band.
Keith on Bill, he gets a bit emotional:
Keith on Bill
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
hopkins
()
Date: March 10, 2018 23:44
"the most discerning, very sensitive musician...the top bass player for me..."
KR
KR
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
Leonioid
()
Date: March 11, 2018 00:02
For all his talent, contributions and benefits Wyman has a fatal flaw, he is a quitter.
Additionally it is an unknown (as times and opinions have changed) how his predilections for having sex with children would affect public/opinions and/or demands on what the band should do about him and how he is. As we have seen recently with the Hollywood hullaballoo once some balls gets rolling they can crush people/movies/careers... and maybe bands. So it is probably good he was long gone before any of that could happen.
As far as Darryl Jones? I think he has filled the spot just fine. Mainly he has the ability to stay in the game for the long run. What ever it takes for one to be able to put up MickKeef, Darryl seems to have it... and that is very very important.
As far as Darryl's playing, I think (once again) how happy I am to be blessed with ears that are not all that picky... if the sounds are rocking and rolling I am happy and Darryl does that just fine. I also enjoy his recent bass riffs/solos on some songs... he jams! I would hate to have the ears of some people around here who can discern the slightest flaw in anything and it seemingly ruins everything for them.
Additionally it is an unknown (as times and opinions have changed) how his predilections for having sex with children would affect public/opinions and/or demands on what the band should do about him and how he is. As we have seen recently with the Hollywood hullaballoo once some balls gets rolling they can crush people/movies/careers... and maybe bands. So it is probably good he was long gone before any of that could happen.
As far as Darryl Jones? I think he has filled the spot just fine. Mainly he has the ability to stay in the game for the long run. What ever it takes for one to be able to put up MickKeef, Darryl seems to have it... and that is very very important.
As far as Darryl's playing, I think (once again) how happy I am to be blessed with ears that are not all that picky... if the sounds are rocking and rolling I am happy and Darryl does that just fine. I also enjoy his recent bass riffs/solos on some songs... he jams! I would hate to have the ears of some people around here who can discern the slightest flaw in anything and it seemingly ruins everything for them.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: March 11, 2018 00:47
Quote
Leonioid
As far as Darryl's playing, I think (once again) how happy I am to be blessed with ears that are not all that picky... if the sounds are rocking and rolling I am happy and Darryl does that just fine. I also enjoy his recent bass riffs/solos on some songs... he jams! I would hate to have the ears of some people around here who can discern the slightest flaw in anything and it seemingly ruins everything for them.
Or.......I feel sorry for the ears of some people around here can't discern the beauty of some players. Those who can hear the beauty, hear also when it isn't, and it ruins most everything for them. Not everything. But it is hard turning off that part of my mind when I listen to the Post-Wyman Stones. It used to be 4 interesting, contributing musicians, plus the singer. Now it's only 3.
Re: 25 years without Bill Wyman, good or bad? Your thoughts!
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: March 11, 2018 00:53
Quote
hopkins
I really liked early Rhythm Kings but they didn't swing really, did they?
There's a question mark at the end of that sentence, so I'll read that as a question.
Answer: Yes they did! And how!!
I've seen them on stage grooving along together in the most impressive way, and also in a studio playing a (sort of) private show for families... and that was beyond astonishing.
Rhythm Kings and swing go together like Rolling Stones and total greatness!
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
crholmstrom , cyclist , Dan , dandelion12 , fedecarp , harlem shuffle , MisterO , roryg , Slop , ttutone , VoodooLounge13
Guests:
1929
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10